Standing Committee A

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

New Clause 3 - Relief of small motor salvage operators from excessive expense and bookkeeping, etc

`.—(1) Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator has a turnover from the activities that are specified in section 1(2) of less than £1,000,000 per annum, the maximum fee that a local authority may determine under section 3(1)(b) shall be calculated on a sliding scale from— 
 (a) turnover less than £100,000 per annum: maximum fee that may be determined £20, to 
 (b) turnover less than £1,000,000 per annum: maximum fee that may be determined £200. 
 (2) Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator purchases: 
 (a) a part of a motor vehicle for less than £20, or 
 (b) five or more parts together for less than £100, 
 he shall not be obliged by such regulations as may be made under section 7(1) to keep a record of the description of the part or parts (save that the part in question has been marked with a vehicle identification number under the provisions of regulation 67(3) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986). 
 (3) Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator purchases for less than £100 a motor vehicle whose engine and chassis or frame are over 10 years old, he shall not be obliged by such regulations as may be made under section 8(1) to notify the destruction of the motor vehicle. 
 (4) Where a person carries on the business of a motor salvage operator in whole or part on domestic premises, the right of a constable to enter and inspect premises under section 9(1) shall not extend to the domestic premises.'.—[Mr. Chidgey.] 
Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Michael Fabricant: I must confess that I had forgotten precisely where I was in my speech, but I shall resist the temptation to recap all that I said this morning.
 Subsection (4) is inappropriate. I believe that it is quite proper for a police officer to have the right to enter and inspect domestic premises if business is carried on there. I have some sympathy with hobbyists and those who provide spare parts that have a low value, and I was comparing that provision with a similar provision in the Medway Council Bill; the Kent police took the view that it might be too burdensome for business to have to record every transaction, particularly those transactions with a low value. Does the Minister believe that it might be worth introducing such an amendment on Report? 
 What is the Minister's view on the sliding scale? Does he plan to table an amendment on Report—or even now, as we have had a few hours to consider the matter since this morning's Sitting—on what the limits should be and whether those proposed in subsection (1) are appropriate?

John Bercow: I welcome your return to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I said this morning that I was misty eyed, leaden footed and sad at the thought of the conclusion of our proceedings. We really are now approaching their end, this being our last sitting. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has eloquently dealt with several of the issues that were helpfully raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). However, I should like to say a few words on the new clause.
 It was helpful of the hon. Member for Eastleigh to make it clear that the genesis of his new clause was a discussion that he had with the British Motorcyclists Federation. I see some merit in the new clause, but there are some problems with it. I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman over subsection (4). I could tell from his expression during the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield that the hon. Gentleman was taken aback that other hon. Members disagreed with him about the right of a constable to enter and inspect domestic premises. 
 As became clear earlier in the Committee's proceedings, I take a relatively libertarian line on such matters, and on the whole I am inclined to the view that if a police constable or other representative of authority is to enter and inspect a private citizen's premises, whether that citizen is in the role of a business practitioner or is at home, he should be obliged to carry a warrant. My bona fides on that subject are fairly clear. What I found curious about the hon. Gentleman's stance—I was anticipated in making this point by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—was that he seemed to rest his case entirely on the nature of the premises, whereas it would seem sensible to focus on the nature of the activity taking place on the premises. If that activity is, or is reasonably suspected to be, unlawful or, indeed, criminal, it is not clear why it would be unreasonable for a police constable to enter and inspect the premises. I am engaging in some exegesis, to discover the hon. Gentleman's thinking, but I think that he had in mind the notion that an Englishman's, or an Englishwoman's, home is his or her castle. However, that cannot be an absolute. I see that the hon. Gentleman is teetering on the brink, so I give way.

David Chidgey: Not teetering, Mr. O'Brien. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. In what circumstances is he aware at present of police officers entering domestic dwellings without a warrant? Does he recognise a distinction between, for example, a back bedroom containing recycled, second-hand vintage motor cycle parts and one containing a laboratory for prohibited drugs?

Michael Fabricant: The North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend, in what was intended as a helpful interjection from a sedentary position, referred, almost as though it were his mantra—some might suspect that it is—to the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I do not intend to expatiate on its contents, let alone its merits or demerits. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend tries to tempt me along a path that would not meet with the Committee's approval—I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation of that—and might even incur the wrath of the Chairman.
 The hon. Gentleman is right. I cannot readily think of a circumstance in which a police constable has entered and inspected an individual's home without a warrant. Doubtless, there are cases where the extremity of the alleged offence and the urgency of investigation justify such action, but I cannot think of one. 
 I should like the hon. Gentleman to understand—even if we are to disagree—that I do not disagree with him on the desirability, indeed necessity, of the constable having a warrant. I agree that, in the context of the offences that we are discussing, it would be inappropriate for a police constable, or other accredited representative of the law—as Sherlock Holmes would have described them—to enter and inspect premises without a warrant. However, the hon. Gentleman takes that one step further. He is guilty of an extreme liberalism that he cannot expect me or other sober and sensible members of the Committee to sign up for. The hon. Gentleman seems to argue that—[Interruption.]The Minister chunters something about The Daily Telegraph, which I did not hear. If he wants to make an intervention, I will be happy to take it. 
 The hon. Member for Eastleigh seems to argue that, not only is it wrong for a constable to enter and inspect premises without a warrant, but that it is wrong in principle—without exception—for a constable, or other representative of authority, to enter and inspect the domestic premises of a motor salvage operator even when in possession of a warrant, which is extraordinary. 
Mr. Chidgey indicated dissent.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman now dissents from that. I give way because it is an important point.

David Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman interpret that from the clause or from the debate; if the latter, he may have misheard? My understanding of the clause is that it applies only where a constable wishes to inspect the premises without a warrant. It may not be clear in the phrasing and, if that is a drafting error, I will accept it. However, my interpretation is that he or she should have a warrant.

John Bercow: That is a remarkably helpful clarification. I speedily avert my eye from the hallowed words of the hon. Gentleman's proposed new clause to clause 9(1), page 6, lines 5 to 34. If within those lines, the point that the hon. Gentleman now seeks to make is accounted for and clearly addressed, I—in the spirit of amity that is now engulfing the Committee—am happy to apologise to him.
 I would just pray in aid, however, the fact of the wording of the clause, and—without seeming to rub in the point—amplify what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The wording is not clear. The burden of my criticism of new clause 3(4) is that it seems to assume that it is wrong in principle for a constable to enter and inspect even with a warrant. If the hon. Gentleman says that is not his point, and that it is only where there is no warrant, he and I will be in agreement.

Michael Fabricant: I do not wish to give the Committee the impression that there is any dissent on our Benches. However, I believe that my hon. Friend accepts that we have agreed that a constable can enter the premises of a registered trader without a warrant. New clause 3(4) states,
the right of a constable to enter and inspect premises— 
those are domestic premises— 
shall not extend to the domestic premises, 
where the business of a motor salvage operator is located. If my hon. Friend accepts that a registered business can be inspected by a chief constable without a warrant, why should a business that extends to domestic premises be exempted?

John Bercow: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fairness to Ministers, who have not participated so far, but will have a chance to shortly, the burden of our criticism does not rest upon them. The Minister would say, ``So what? This is not our point. We are having a discussion with the Liberal Democrats''. That discussion is an interesting and important one, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield.
 Has the hon. Member for Eastleigh considered the curious and untidy contradiction between the treatment of a registered salvage operator practising from his commercial premises and the treatment that is to be accorded to an undoubtedly registered operator practising from his domestic premises? I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue should surely be the nature of the activities and the grounds that the constable or representative of authority has for believing that those activities may be in breach of the law. Those should be the material considerations in determining the appropriateness of entry and inspection. It seems strange that a registered salvage operator, operating from his commercial premises should be susceptible to and, to use the Minister's phrase, ``up for'' an inspection by a constable without a warrant, but if he is operating at home he should be granted the apparently extra protection of a visit only after grant of a warrant. 
 I may have misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who is almost invariably right, but we did not agree to inspection without warrants for registered practitioners operating from their commercial premises. We did not want to divide the Committee on the point but I think that the record will show that throughout those discussions I made it clear that I was quite happy to entertain the different options, but for my part—I was not speaking for colleagues—I felt that a warrant should be required for both categories. The Minister will recall that I tabled amendments that would have allowed equal treatment either in the sense of a requirement for a warrant in both cases, or of the non-requirement of a warrant. My own view is that a warrant should be required in all cases.

Michael Fabricant: I think that we have unanimity of purpose on this, at least on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend will recall that I said that it seemed strange in the extreme that someone who was registered and therefore presumably law abiding, would not have the protection of a warrant, whereas someone who might be trading unlawfully and deliberately not going on to the register, would have the protection of a warrant.

John Bercow: I agree. The point has now been forcefully made. We are all clear now where we stand. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh for what I might describe as clarification via intervention. We are all much clearer as a result. We should pay tribute to him for tabling the new clause.
 My second point is that the new clause applies only to motor salvage operators. That was omitted from the multifaceted oration that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield skilfully delivered before lunch. I am not entirely clear, given the similarity between motor salvage operators and registration plate suppliers, why the hon. Member for Eastleigh thinks that it is appropriate to have this protection and this burden minimisation for motor salvage operators, but not for registration plate suppliers. It may just have been a test case and, having tested the water and discovered that it is warm, he may intend to apply it more widely on Report.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend may be a little confused about this issue. I am confused. The hon. Member for Eastleigh, in an intervention in my speech, spoke about parts that had been specially made for second-hand or vintage and veteran cars. If they are specially manufactured, I cannot understand how they could be salvaged.

John Bercow: I thank my hon. Friend, but unfortunately I cannot respond to his intervention because it relates to the thought processes of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, which I cannot possibly be expected to detect and on which it would not be proper for me to speculate. A moment ago the Minister, either out of weariness, a desire to be helpful or a combination of the two, said from a sedentary position that the significance of the clause was that it was about spare parts. I fully accept and understand that. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I was able to read the clause and I appreciate that point.
 My point is slightly different. Without using absolutely the same wording and replicating the precise contents of the clause, save for the substitution of the title ``registration plate supplier'', the general principle which is at stake, namely the attempt to minimise the burden on small businesses and to distinguish between the costs imposed upon them and those which might be borne by larger companies, could apply in the registration plate supply business just as much as it applies in the motor salvage business. It is for the hon. Member for Eastleigh, either now or at a later date, to explain whether one of the tricks that he has got up his sleeve is to spring a similar new clause in relation to registration plate suppliers on Report. I am all agog to discover the parliamentary tactics of the Liberal Democrats. I rest that point.

Michael Fabricant: Has my hon. Friend noticed subsection (3), which I missed in my peroration this morning? It says:
Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator purchases for less than £100 a motor vehicle whose engine and chassis or frame are over 10 years old, he shall not be obliged...to notify the destruction of the motor vehicle. 
Does he not agree that there is a danger in that provision? If the destruction of a vehicle is not notified to the registrar, is there not a danger that spare parts from such a vehicle—the fact that it is being sold for less than £100 implies that it cannot be in a very good state of repair—might be put on the market? Those parts may be damaged and may put the purchaser at risk if they are used in his own vehicle.

John Bercow: That is possible. I am not an authority on spare parts or indeed on vehicles and I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is right. Again I am trying to interpret the thinking of the hon. Member for Eastleigh without his having told me what it is, but I presume that his motivation in tabling the new clause, and that particular part of it, is that the age and minimal utility of the parts concerned are such that they would have a nugatory commercial value and would be unlikely to be used in the commission of crime.
Mr. Chidgey indicated assent.

John Bercow: I am getting a helpful indication from the hon. Gentleman, that that is what he has in mind. However, I do not know whether that satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield.
 My final point relates to the sliding scale. In fairness, the hon. Member for Eastleigh has a point. One thing that the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members have had in common throughout the Committee stage of this Bill is an interest in minimising the burden on small companies and recognising that regulation must be as light as is compatible with effectiveness. 
 What I am not certain about is the wisdom of what I would describe as the permissive provision in subsection (1) of the new clause. The hon. Member for Eastleigh provides the opportunity, but not the obligation, for a local authority to define and apply a sliding scale. My impression, unless I have misread the clause, and I do not think I have, is that such a sliding scale could vary from one local authority to another. Given that, at least in part, it is supposed to reflect costs, we should agree that administrative costs need not and should not vary between one authority and another.

David Chidgey: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that under subsection (1)
the maximum fee that a local authority may determine under section 3 (1) (b) shall be calculated on a sliding scale. 
So the clause proposes a maximum fee, which I would have thought would have relieved some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

John Bercow: It does, but not entirely. There are two problems. First, it is not clear whether there would be a minimum, although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assurance on the maximum. Secondly, the point about the turnover limits is central. I referred to variable schemes—different sliding scale schemes applying to different local authorities. What I do not know is whether these are just illustrative figures that the hon. Gentleman is using and whether they could be varied between one part of the country and another. It seems to me a point worth making.
 This new clause has been of great interest to both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. I know that no Labour Members of Parliament have had any interest in the clause whatsoever, but I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has done and I think that the British Motorcyclist Federation will welcome the fact that Opposition Members have at least been prepared to air the arguments and then await the response of the Minister. That, with enthusiasm and close attention, I shall now do.

Charles Clarke: There is no lack of readiness on our part to debate the issues. In my opinion, however, there is only one point of substance that has been made in the foregoing debate. That is the whole issue that I thought was raised very articulately and clearly by the hon. Member for Eastleigh in relation to vintage clubs and the whole range of expertise there. Where the hon. Gentleman has an important point, one which I shall address, and the reason why I was ``chuntering'', in the phrase of the hon. Member for Buckingham, is in the obvious difference between the significance of number plates and that of parts in a business and industry activity. That hobby was in fact the core of the speech made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.
 I thought that the hon. Member for Buckingham was being slightly unfair on himself in saying that he had no familiarity with spare parts. Some might say that he was the world leader of spare parts when it came to looking at the way debate in this place occurs. Alternatively, the hon. Member for Lichfield gave me a list of all the radio and television stations that he had constructed, refurbished and trained in the 1980s and 1990s. When I saw Radio Echo Moscow on the list, I thought that that perfectly summed up a description of the speeches of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—simply an echo of what was going on. 
 There are four important points why we oppose this new clause and will oppose it, even if it is put to a vote. The first deals with the question of thieves, subsection (1) of his new clause. The reason why I am slightly weary with the hon. Member for Lichfield is that we have already debated at great length—I think when he was being bitten or recovering from his bite—the importance of sliding scales to address the issues effectively. We want to consult properly. I know that there have been those who are cynical about consultation, but we acknowledge that it may be necessary to have a sliding scale and for different approaches to be taken, and we want to reach agreement in a proper way. That is why I cannot give ball park figures, as requested by the hon. Member for Lichfield this morning, but we want to make the fee setting process transparent and give industry the assurance that it needs that the fees have been set at a level solely to recover administration costs and nothing else. That is the issue that we debated at some length in Committee earlier on. I do not want to repeat that debate, except to say that that is why we do not go along with subsection (1) of the new clause. 
 I will give the hon. Gentleman one assurance, however, as I do not think that the Government gave sufficient attention to this before his speech, and that is that when we consult with the Local Government Association of the industry, we will take particular account of the interests of the motorcycle hobbyist—or the vintage motor bike trade—in drawing up the guidelines for that sliding scale. There are people who engage in this kind of activity as their hobby and the view is legitimate in the way that it is addressed. It is perfectly appropriate for us to take account of that interest in the guidelines and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do so. That is a product of his raising the new clause in the way that he has. 
 Secondly, we believe that subsection (2) offers a serious loophole for criminals to exploit. I know that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention in any way, but it would exempt business in the circumstances described from keeping records of parts. This would break the audit trail, which is extremely important for the police in their investigations. Maintaining that audit trail is an important way for them to establish what the networks are and how the business operates. For that reason, we are against low-level exemptions like this. I understand that bureaucratic issues arise from this and we will try and deal with that on the fee level in the guidelines. We are concerned that criminals would seek to exploit an exemption by gradually disposing of small quantities of small stolen parts. I know that that was not the intention of the British Motorcyclists Federation or of the hon. Gentleman, but we are concerned about that possibility.

Michael Fabricant: I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the intelligence-led policing of the Kent constabulary, with which he is familiar. Given what applies to the audit trail, why do the Kent police take the view that it is not necessary to record transactions of small items?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not permitted to express a clear view in a debate on a private Member's Bill. The issues of the secondary market in the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman refers are complex—it is easier to identify parts of a motor bike than it is to identify the kinds of business that the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill seek to regulate. That is why I take that view although, again, it is a fair point for the hon. Gentleman to make.
 The third subsection of the new clause would exempt motor salvage operators from having to notify the DVLA of the destruction of a motor vehicle more than 10 years old if it was purchased for less than £100. We cannot support that; the DVLA vehicle register must be as accurate as possible because it is the foundation of a great deal of police work to prevent and detect crime.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. His response to my hon. Friend is clear. Does his argument apply only to the precautionary principle—I would not cavil at it if it did—or has the Minister been advised of examples of crime that would be impossible to detect if the new clause were accepted?

Charles Clarke: We are basically advised by the precautionary principle. We expect that the powers in the Bill will be used only in relation to a small minority of the vehicles destroyed every year because the bulk will be notified to the DVLA by means of the certificate of destruction that will be implemented under the provisions of the EU end-of-life vehicles directive.
 We oppose the fourth subsection of the new clause on the grounds set out by the hon. Member for Lichfield. The provisions of the Bill will extend only to domestic premises if they meet the definitions in subsection (2)—in other words, only to registered motor salvage dealers. We see no reason why any premises used for business, domestic or other purposes of registered motor salvage dealers should be exempted from the police powers, for the reasons that have already been argued. To exempt registered domestic premises from the powers to enter and inspect premises would be to blunt the Bill's effectiveness, making its objectives harder for the police to implement. We do not wish to provide any loopholes. We, therefore, disagree with each of the four subsections of the new clause although I am in the contradictory position of disagreeing with them without in any way criticising the motivation of the hon. Gentleman or of the BMF. 
 I make it absolutely clear that those who are engaged only in buying and selling parts—part of the business that we are talking about—do not come within the activities described in subsection (2). People come within the purview of the Bill only if they dismantle a vehicle for its parts; simply trading in parts does not in itself bring people within the purview of the Bill. In urging the hon. Member for Eastleigh to withdraw the motion, I assure him that, in regard particularly to fee structure and guidance but also to other areas of guidance, we will look more carefully than we would otherwise have done at the specific interests of the vintage trade—the hobbyist—because we do not wish to inhibit that reasonable activity.

David Chidgey: I thank the Minister for his gracious and helpful response. I am glad that the Government understand that hobbyists—motor enthusiasts—are a different category of people. It was helpful of the Minister to say that those who trade solely in parts of motor cycles are outwith the purview of the Bill. That is a helpful clarification.
 I understand the Minister's point about registered salvage operators. The most important fact is that they, rather than the premises from which they work, are registered as such. Far be it from me, as the member of the Committee who throughout has argued for a robust audit trail, to introduce an element that would break such a trail. Therefore, for the sake of consistency and out of gratitude to the Minister for his clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill O'Brien: New clause 4 is not moved.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I am disturbed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green is not here to move new clause 4. The subject would have been interesting. Has the curse of Standing Committee A struck again? Is he unwell?

Bill O'Brien: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member is being naughty. New Clause 9 Revenue

New Clause 9 - Revenue

`After section 2 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 there shall be inserted— 
 ``2A. The Secretary of State shall make provision for any revenue raised as a result of an offence committed under subsection (2)(1)(a) above to be provided to a local authority as an additional resource for the purposes of complying with the provisions of section 3(1) below''.'.—[Mr. Bercow.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

John Bercow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 New clause 9 is the last of the new clauses and the last of the issues for the Committee to consider. I move new clause 9—

Greg Pope: Formally?

John Bercow: No, not formally, but I will try to be brief. So that our proceedings are meaningful to outside observers and intelligible to those members of the Committee who, unaccountably, do not have in their possession copies of the relevant sections of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, I should emphasise that subsection (2)(1)(a) and section 3(1) are contained in that Act. Specifically, subsection (2)(1)(a) relates to penalties for unauthorised dumping, where vehicles are abandoned
on land in the open air, or on any other land forming part of a highway. 
Section 3(1) refers to the removal of abandoned vehicles. I hope that that puts the matter in context. 
 The Bill deals with motor salvage operators, but not with what happens before the vehicles get to the salvage operator. The new clause would add to the Bill, bolster it and give effect to a Conservative party policy. We are concerned that abandoned cars are left to clutter up the countryside because they do not have enough value as scrap. There is widespread concern about that. The evidence suggests a growing problem. A recent RAC survey found that some 150 to 250 cars are abandoned every month in Islington alone. The price of scrap metal is so low that increasingly old cars are being left on the streets, not scrapped. 
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester) indicated assent—

John Bercow: I appreciate the assent of the hon. Member for Colchester to that proposition. He may have local experience that he will want to share with the Committee.
 Cars often fetch as little as £3 as scrap, yet it often costs more than that to take them away. That imbalance is a disincentive to good conduct and an incentive to bad conduct. Scrap metal prices are unlikely to rise, given the effects of the end-of-life vehicles directive on increasing the amount of scrap metal.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while it is bad enough that people abandon cars, the fact that the cars often still have petrol in the tank is a safety hazard?

John Bercow: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I would not want to go into the specifics of the matter.
 We have all seen examples that are causes for concern. Fairly recently, not far from my Westminster flat, I saw a vehicle that had been burned out and abandoned, and was emitting an unpleasant odour. I do not know whether there was petrol in it. After a while, a sticker saying ``Police Aware'' was attached to it, and soon after that—although not as soon as I would have liked—it was removed. 
 Under section 2 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 it is an offence—for which a fine of up to £2,500 can be levied—to abandon a vehicle at any place in the open air. Under section 3 of the Act, councils have a duty to remove any abandoned vehicle. However, that is expensive, and local authorities often feel unable properly to fulfil the duty when they have many others to discharge. Whether or not a motor vehicle has been abandoned must be deduced from all the circumstances of the case. Section 2 appears to cover permanent, not temporary, abandonment. Section 2(2) states that 
a person who leaves any thing on any land in such circumstances or for such a period that he may reasonably be assumed to have abandoned it
 has contravened that part of the Act. 
 The offence may be prosecuted by anyone—for example, an aggrieved landowner. 
 This point, relating as it does to the disposal of vehicles and to offences in relation to vehicles, will be of the closest possible interest, concern and, indeed, potential anxiety, to the Under-Secretary. 
 I should appreciate it if the Minister would attend for a few moments—

Charles Clarke: Talk to the point, then.

John Bercow: I am talking closely to the point. This is an important issue relating to a piece of legislation that was passed 22 years ago.
 There appears to be no more precise definition of ``abandoned'' than that which I just volunteered—which I am sure that the Under-Secretary could repeat off the top of his head, verbatim and without fault, were I to give him the opportunity to do so. 
 A House of Commons Library paper dated 26 June 2000 refers to ``Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences''—a much-thumbed tome—which cites the dictionary definition of ``to give up'' or ``forsake'' and states that a vehicle will normally be considered to be abandoned if it is not properly taxed. Although the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows for the removal of untaxed vehicles, section 3 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 still applies. 
 Abandoned vehicles must be removed from the streets in accordance with the law. The new clause would allow that to happen and should, if it works aright, ensure that it does.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the tome to which he referred is well known to me, as it applies in both England and Scotland. During my short practice at the Scottish bar, we relied on it heavily.
 Has my hon. Friend considered the implications of the possibility that a car may be deemed to be abandoned if it is no longer taxed in England, but may not be deemed to be abandoned in similar circumstances in Scotland?

John Bercow: I should have thought that a great deal more removal activity would take place south of the border than north, and that enforcement issues would be involved. However, I have not reflected closely on my hon. Friend's point, and perhaps she will want to develop it in a thoughtful, eloquent and enticing contribution of her own, once my effort has concluded.
 Conservatives believe that abandoned cars should be treated like litter, and that local authorities should be more efficient at towing them away. Given that councils have no problem towing away cars that are illegally parked, it is unclear why they should have difficulty with abandoned ones. We are therefore seeking to introduce a legal means by which councils would be able to keep the revenue generated by enforcing fines for abandoning cars. That policy, which would help to clean up our streets, was also announced by the Conservative and Unionist party in our war on litter document, which was published in September 2000. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Anne McIntosh: Drawing on my short intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I wonder whether the Minister will take this opportunity to put my mind at rest by confirming that circumstances north of the border will not differ from those in England. If the new clause were accepted, that problem could probably be avoided. My understanding is that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 applies uniformly in England and Scotland, so it would concern me greatly if the original provisions were applied in different ways in the two countries. That is my argument in a nutshell, and I shall not rehearse the points made in my intervention on my hon. Friend.

Jonathan R Shaw: Although I welcome the new clause, it is sadly flawed in that it would not provide the revenue stream that the Conservatives claim. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978—the Labour party's finest year in terms of rubbish collection—the maximum fine for abandoning a vehicle is £2,500, and abandoned cars are treated the same as any other litter. However, according to officers of Kent county council and Medway council—one is Conservative-run and the other is a minority administration, so I am not voicing a partisan perspective—more than 90 per cent. of abandoned cars are untraceable. People act irresponsibly by failing to send the logbook and accompanying paperwork to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, so finding those concerned and imposing the necessary fines is an enormous task that bears little fruit.
 The new clause would prove extremely costly, place an extra burden on local authorities and prove unworkable in terms of the revenue stream. The hon. Member for Buckingham is nodding—

John Bercow: I was shaking my head.

Jonathan R Shaw: Well, perhaps he will be nodding his head by the time I have finished my contribution.

John Bercow: That is optimism.

Jonathan R Shaw: Socialists are always optimists. [Hon. Members: ``Oh!''] I and many of my colleagues have always been very comfortable with that word. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Colchester breathes in any more deeply, he will swallow his teeth.

Charles Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware of the phrase ``optimism of the soul, pessimism of the intellect,'' which Antonio Gramsci used to describe the way in which socialists should address such issues? That phrase fits precisely with my hon. Friend's description.

John Bercow: Does it appear in the ``Prison Notebooks''?

Charles Clarke: No, it is from a speech and it should guide us all.

Bill O'Brien: Order. Could we return to new clause 9?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for bringing my hon. Friend the Minister to order. To answer his question, I was not aware of that quotation, but I shall take a reference from him and look it up.
 The new clause would not provide the necessary revenue stream for local authorities and it would sap other services and resources. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, this is a serious problem that is getting increasingly worse. As he eloquently pointed out, the scrap value of cars has gone down, along with their retail value. They are not the commodity that they were in 1978, when the abandoning of cars was regarded as an important matter and there was an onus on local authorities to find the owner. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 requires local authority officers to place a seven-day notice on abandoned cars, but in 2001 such notices are an invitation to burn the cars and smash their windows. If we were starting with a blank sheet of paper, we would not want the laws that we have today, because they make matters worse.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman argues—quite convincingly—that the proposal might not work because the owners of abandoned vehicles are difficult to trace and therefore to fine. However, does he agree that we need mechanisms to ensure that such matters are reported to the DVLA, so that its database can be maintained accurately, and how would he ensure that such rules are adhered to?

Jonathan R Shaw: The problem is that the system was designed many years ago and does not meet today's needs. There are inherent structural problems. My local authority and I discussed the matter with the DVLA, the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, but we went round in circles. We would not set up today the system that we have.
 Euro-sceptic Opposition Members might find uncomfortable the fact that, in France, people who pass a driving test at 17 or 18 purchase a number plate for their car that is then transferred to any new vehicle that they may buy. A number plate in France is therefore personal, rather like a national insurance number, so there is little problem with abandoned vehicles. Such a system would be my solution to the problem in this country, but it would require primary legislation. 
 We have heard about the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill; once again the Medway is proving a trailblazer. A pilot scheme has just begun that brings together the powers of DVLA officers, local authority officers and the police. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, road traffic legislation allows the DVLA to clamp and remove untaxed vehicles quickly. Officers do not have to place a seven-day notice. If all the agencies worked together and had special arrangement with the contractor to remove the cars, big inroads could well be made into the number of abandoned vehicles in Medway, and, if the pilot proves successful, throughout Kent. We hope that it will fan out across the county. 
 The costs are enormous. As I said on Second Reading, Kent county council spent £650,000 removing cars, and an officer told me that that figure will soon top a million. The new clause, however, will raise costs further without sorting out the structural problems. The officers of Kent county council, Medway council and the police advised me that they have no recollection of anyone ever being prosecuted for abandoning a vehicle. 
 I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Buckingham on an issue that is close to my heart. We must resolve the problem; otherwise it will get worse. The new clause, however, is not the solution. We should await the outcome of the Medway pilot. The Home Office and the DETR are watching it closely. One solution could be to unite the powers of the two agencies, perhaps by having a local authority officer operate as an agent for the DVLA. 
 We must cut the time of seven-day notices, which are a disaster—particularly in urban areas and on private land. It is a honey pot for vandals. The hon. Member for Lichfield spoke about the dangers created for individuals when cars are abandoned. Uniting the powers and speeding up the time in which vehicles are removed and stored may provide a better solution. As I said, we should carefully study the outcomes of the pilot before deciding whether primary legislation is necessary. The new clause will simply impose further burdens on local authorities and would not resolve the problems that all our communities face.

Charles Clarke: I commend the new clause and agree that it was put constructively. Abandoned vehicles are a serious problem. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), who has been an assiduous campaigner on this matter. The problem is that an individual event—an abandoned car—requires a multi-agency solution. It requires the local authority, the police, DVLA and often the fire authorities to work together. We may have failed in the past because the partnership was not close enough to deal with the problem effectively. Apart from Kent's scheme, some in the north-east have seen effective partnership between the fire service and others in dealing with abandoned vehicles.
 One of my most fascinating experiences as a Minister was to hear a presentation by the chief constable of Kent, Sir David Phillips, on abandoned cars and the issues that led to the project in Medway to which the my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred. We do need the co-ordinated action of that approach. 
 The pilot scheme has at its core that abandoned vehicles, which are usually untaxed, will be wheel-clamped by a DVLA contractor—in Medway it is one called Sureway. If the vehicles are not taxed within 24 hours they will be removed to one of two car pounds and disposed of after 35 days, so the seven-day problem simply does not arise. Summary action is taken to deal with the situation immediately because the law has been broken by the car not being taxed. 
 The pilot is a multi-agency approach to the problem and could be used effectively and positively elsewhere. Earlier today, one of the Government Whips asked me whether it could be done in the county that he represents, as it is a beneficial general practice. The aim is to deliver a shock to the owners of unlicensed vehicles and force them to relicense and we believe that a number of abandoned vehicles will be caught in the net. 
 We are evaluating the scheme very carefully, and we hope it will provide us with solutions that we can introduce nationally. I should emphasise that some of them may require legislative changes, because of questions in respect of the legal relationships between the various agencies that we need to get right. 
 The reason why we resist the new clause is first because it does not seem to be multi-agency in its approach. That is not designed as a grade-one criticism, but it seems to us that the provision needs to be multi-agency as it is proper and right to look at all the legislative changes that would be needed in a combined way. 
 On the horizon is the famous end of life vehicle directive, which seeks to make provision for the collection and environmentally sound destruction or recovery and re-use of vehicles that have outlived their usefulness. We are currently looking at how best to implement the directive, which we hope would tackle the problem that the new clause seeks to address. 
 I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Member for Buckingham will consider withdrawing the new clause. I can give him the assurance that it is a matter of high concern to the Government, and what might be of more interest and concern to him is that we do not see this as a party political matter, as my hon. Friend has indicated and that particular ideas, either from the hon. Member for Buckingham or from his party would be looked at positively. 
 As we are not proposing the acceptance of this new clause, the interesting and learned points from the hon. Member for the Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) about the relationship between Scotland and England do not apply.

John Bercow: I listened closely to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford and I know that he has a long-standing interest in the subject. Notwithstanding that, I feel that he errs on the side of pessimism and I am not sure that his pessimism as to the prospects of success via this clause is justified. Frankly, he was very defeatist about it. I note what said about the pilot scheme and I accept that all eyes should be focused upon that and that one can learn from it. I do not intend to dilate further on the arguments, although we might do so on Report.
 My only criticism of what the Minister has offered is that the Bill as it stands, even without the new clause, provides for exchanges of information and therefore it contains the scope for multi-agency approaches. Although the onus and responsibility in the new clause is on local authorities, it is not to be supposed that local authorities would be acting entirely without access to information and assistance from other authorities. I am not sure that it is entirely the stand-alone offering that the Minister is suggesting.

Charles Clarke: My point is that we wish to learn from the Medway experience before deciding on what is exactly the right legislative form of those multi-agency relationships.

John Bercow: I am interested in what the Minister says, as it follows from his argument that a new piece of legislation would be required to give effect either to the specific form of the pilot scheme or to a variant thereof. We are saying is that our proposal could be effective and could be tacked on to the Bill. It seems there is a difference between us there, but I shall not labour the point, as we have had a good rehearsal of the arguments on this and a great many other matters today.
 I am happy to withdraw my new clause, which is the last new clause and matter of substantive debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause by leave, withdrawn.

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. With your permission, I should like to thank you and your fellow Chairmen for the way in which you have conducted our business, which has been admirably even-handed throughout. It was occasionally peppery, but that was no doubt deserved because of the various diversions from order, particularly by the Opposition.
 I thank the Clerks for the work that they have done to ensure that we consider everything in good order, as we need to. As always, the Hansard staff enabled us to read what we said—often at great length—very rapidly afterwards. I thank the Badge Messengers for their advice, which kept us going. 
 I should very much like to thank my Bill team. On behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), I thank his colleagues for the work that they did to ensure that we considered the Bill in good order. As always, I thank the Whips on both sides of the Committee for their admirable understanding and all members of the Committee for the way in which business has been conducted. 
 We have listened to the debates carefully and will table amendments later in the light of amendments that have been moved by Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that we can go forward in that spirit.

John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I echo the tributes that the Minister has rightly and graciously paid to you and your fellow Chairmen, and to the Clerks, who have done a truly outstanding job in your support and ours. I also pay tribute to the Hansard writers, the Badge Messengers and, indeed, to all members of the Committee. In the past, I served on three or four Bill Committees from the Back Benches, and this has been as good-natured a Committee as I have had the privilege to witness.
 The Minister's temper varied a little during the two weeks of our considerations, but he has on the whole been pretty amicable and has given fair wind to the various points that my hon. Friends and I made. It is right to place it on the record that his standing—Mr. John Kampfner described him as a prospective leader of the Labour party—has not been damaged or compromised by the Committee's deliberations. Among the other runners and riders, the Minister is still in quite a strong position. 
 I thank and pay tribute to the Under-Secretary for his robust contributions, courtesy and good humour, which were much appreciated. I also thank the Whips on both sides of the Committee, whose presence has been worth while. They are usually silent, but not invariably so, and we acknowledge that they have a role to play. 
 I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), for Vale of York and for Lichfield for their contributions and for stoically putting up with my first attempt at leadership from the Front Bench in a Standing Committee. 
 I should like to compliment all members of the Committee who actively contributed. There were occasionally peppery exchanges between Conservatives and Liberal Democrat Members, but they have been active in the Committee. On the whole, there has been a good interchange of arguments both among hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and between Opposition and Government Members. 
 I note what the Minister has said about prospective new amendments and possibly new clauses at a later stage. We will consider them with interest and decide how to debate them accordingly. We reiterate that the central purpose of the Bill is valid; the argument is about how to make it effective. I hope that the Committee has profited from our consideration of the Bill, which I very much enjoyed.

David Chidgey: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister and the hon. Member for Buckingham in thanking all those who took part in the proceedings, especially the officials, your good self, Mr. O'Brien, and your co-Chairman, who steered the Committee with deftness, clarity and purpose. You always made sure that we kept more or less to the straight and narrow.
 I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) who so robustly stood in for me and advanced the Liberal Democrats' arguments during my enforced absence last week in a frozen part of northern Europe. I was sad to have missed my hon. Friend's contribution, although the record makes delightful reading. 
 I have been Front Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in Committee in four or five Bills in this Parliament and this Committee has been the most constructive on which I have been privileged to serve. The debate was levelled at the issues in the Bill and rarely strayed into point-scoring or petty competition. That was most refreshing; I was glad the Minister said that Members' efforts would be reflected in the Bill's modification and amendment. 
 There are differences between the Government and Opposition parties on some issues in the Bill; the Minister said that he would table amendments and I therefore make a final plea that he does so quickly so that we have time to consider them before the Bill is considered on Report next Tuesday; that is only two parliamentary days hence, as the House is not sitting on Friday. 
 I look forward to seeing the Bill in its reshaped, modified and improved form and to engaging in debate with the Government and the other Opposition parties at a later stage. The Bill will be an important and welcome addition to the statute book.

Bill O'Brien: On behalf of my co-Chairman and myself, I thank those on the platform and others who have worked to make the Committee a success; I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
 I thank all members of the Committee for their help and co-operation; the debates make interesting reading. I take great pleasure in listening to the arguments and in keeping Members in check, which is the job of the Chairman. On behalf of my co-Chairman and others, I thank hon. Members for their kind remarks and for their co-operation and help throughout the proceedings. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
 Committee rose at eight minutes past Six o'clock.